Decoding Gender in Nature-Based Education PDF

Environmental Education Research ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20 Decoding gender in nature-based education: perceptions of environmental educators Abigail Decker & Scott A. Morrison To cite this article: Abigail Decker & Scott A. Morrison (20...

Environmental Education Research ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20 Decoding gender in nature-based education: perceptions of environmental educators Abigail Decker & Scott A. Morrison To cite this article: Abigail Decker & Scott A. Morrison (2021) Decoding gender in nature-based education: perceptions of environmental educators, Environmental Education Research, 27:6, 848-863, DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2021.1898548 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1898548 Published online: 15 Mar 2021. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 851 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 2 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 2021, VOL. 27, NO. 6, 848–863 https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1898548 Decoding gender in nature-based education: perceptions of environmental educators Abigail Decker and Scott A. Morrison Education and Wellness, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY In this qualitative study, we interviewed 20 environmental educators Received 24 September 2020 from six countries about their perceptions of gender in their work Accepted 25 February 2021 with children in nature. While many agreed that the physical environ- KEYWORDS ment seemed to bring fewer gendered cues to learning and allowed Nature-based education; for more independent exploration, their responses also reflected lim- gender; gender socialization; ited confidence in drawing conclusions about the presence and influ- decoding gender; ence of gender in nature-based education. Discussions of gendered ecofeminism language in nature, moving beyond the gender binary, and the role of student free choice emerged. Gender roles and restrictive, harmful gendered socialization will continue to manifest outside if environ- mental educators do not have the awareness and preparedness to identify and intentionally disrupt such experiences. It is essential to ensure that everyone working with children in nature understands the ways gender exists outside, when it is harmful and when it is productive, and how to consciously, intentionally shape student expe- riences with gender outdoors. “I see my work as an educator in general as being a disruptor. When there are things that bring into question gender norms in the garden space, I absolutely feel like it’s my responsi- bility to call attention to those and hold a conversation around them when it’s possible.” – Jenny, a garden-based program coordinator Introduction Gender influences everyone professionally, economically, and socially. It is simply impossible to avoid. In the United States, where we are from, an overwhelming female majority comprise professions requiring nurture and empathy, including teachers, librarians, therapists, registered nurses, childcare workers, and personal care aides. Professions that require tough, skilled labor, such as construction equipment operators and steel workers; careers with specific STEM training, such as software developers and all categories of engineering; and jobs with managerial power, such as movie producers and chief executives, hold the smallest female percentages of all professions (U.S. Bureau of Labor 2018). The labor force in the United States is driven by ste- reotypical notions of femininity as emotional, empathetic, and submissive, and masculinity as intellectual, strong, and dominant. Furthermore, white women make an average of 81.5% of CONTACT Abigail Decker [email protected] Education and Wellness, Elon University, Elon, NC, USA. This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article. © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group  ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 849 male earnings, Black women make only 65.3%, and Hispanic women make only 61.6% (Hegewisch and Hartmann 2019). This phenomenon speaks to the gendered power structures that influence every aspect of society: the way we talk, the jobs we hold, the income we earn, the clothes we wear, the politicians we elect, and the way we treat one another. Gender is also inseparable from other socially constructed identities like race, class, ability, and sexuality. An intersectional approach to gender recognizes the multidimensional oppressions that disproportionately affect women. In 2020, at least 41 transgender or gender non-conforming people were murdered out of prejudice worldwide, the majority of whom were Black or Latinx transgender women (The Human Rights Campaign 2020). One out of every six women in the United States has been the victim of attempted or completed rape in her lifetime, and Native Americans are twice as likely to have experienced sexual assault than any other group (RAINN 2019). Gender inequality and violence are not limited to the United States – these are global issues. UN Women maintains the Global Database on Violence against Women (https:// evaw-global-database.unwomen.org/en), a tool for world leaders to track and prevent gender-based violence, and Women Count (https://data.unwomen.org/women-count), which provides data and policy support to promote gender equality. The OECD Gender Data Portal (https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/) also offers indicators of worldwide gender disparities in education, employment, health, and entrepreneurship. There is plenty of evidence to justify the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal of achieving gender equality by 2030. Gough, Russell, and Whitehouse (2017) recently highlighted the need for greater attention to gender in environmental education, which, for much of the field, has remained on the mar- gins. In reference to the current social movement against sexual abuse, Russell, Gough, and Whitehouse (2018) even asked what #MeToo has to do with environmental education. “There is no reason to think,” they wrote, “that the various sites where environmental educators work such as schools, universities, parks, museums, and nongovernmental organizations are immune to sexual violence, harassment, or discrimination” (p. 273). Indeed, environmental educators must be aware of the ways gender influences who they are and what they do. Awareness, however, is only the beginning. Environmental educators must also be actively and intentionally disrupting harmful gendered norms and stereotypes. Otherwise, they risk ignoring or even cultivating and perpetuating sexual violence, harassment, and discrimination. The implications of gender inequities and the #MeToo movement against sexual abuse are not just for adults, either. Gender socialization begins at birth; anyone who works with children – knowingly or not – contributes to their understanding of gender. Therefore, in this qualitative study, we interviewed 20 environmental educators about gender. We wondered, for example, if they considered nature to be less gendered (Änggård 2011), if they noticed gender exploration and expression in outdoor contexts (Francis 2010; Swain 2006; Walker 2020), and if they think gender has shaped who they are as environmental educators and how their students might view them (Duffy, Warren, and Walsh 2001). Drawing from ecofeminism and Frödén’s (2019) situated decoding of gender, we investigated the intersection of gender and nature-based edu- cation by focusing on the following research questions: What are environmental educators’ perceptions of gender in their work with children in nature? What are the considerations and possibilities for decoding gender in nature-based education? Literature review There has been international concern for the past few decades that children are less connected to nature compared to previous generations (Natural England 2009; Sobel 1996). Louv (2008) coined the term “nature-deficit disorder” to refer to this absence of time spent outdoors, in green spaces, due to increased indoor activity related to the rise in technological devices at home and standardized tests at school (Hursh, Henderson, and Greenwood 2015). One of the ways that 850 ABIGAIL DECKER AND SCOTT A. MORRISON educators have attempted to counter this so-called deficit is by taking students outside to foster connectedness to nature and develop environmental literacy (Ardoin, Bowers, and Gaillard 2020; Barrable and Booth 2020; Smith, Dunhill, and Scott 2018; Sobel 2008). For example, there has been a surge in nature-based education (NBE) programs in the United States (Wake and Birdsall 2016). According to the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE 2017), there has been a 66% increase in nature-based preschools and forest kindergartens in the United States, with the programs now serving more than 10,000 children every year. Similar trends are occurring internationally, like the rise of bush schools in Australia (Siossian 2019). In NBE, nature is the primary context for learning. Through engagement with the natural world, children explore all curriculum areas, both informally, through play and exploration, and formally, through teacher instruction and guidance (Chawla 2018; Sobel 2016). NBE encompasses a wide range of pedagogical strategies and settings, so there is not one collective set of goals that each environmental educator relies upon. The Forest School Association (FSA 2013), an accreditation organization in the United Kingdom, details six guiding principles of the forest school model, including frequent and regular sessions in a natural environment, learner-centered pedagogy, holistic development of all students, and opportunity for supported risk-taking. Garden-based education uses school gardens as a setting for learning and aims to restore and strengthen community bonds, develop food literacy, and provide hands-on, project-based approaches to traditional curriculum (Hirshi 2015; Williams 2018; Williams and Brown 2012). Walking curriculum encourages teachers to rethink where and how learning takes place, and guides students to reconnect with nature through observation, inquiry, and curiosity in the spaces around them (Judson 2020). All of these forms of NBE get students outside and consider nature as co-teacher (Jickling et al. 2018). Decreased time outdoors has inhibited development and compromised wellbeing; returning children to nature provides those opportunities again (Chawla 2020; Chawla et al. 2014). Research has established significant connections between the natural world and the devel- opment and wellbeing of children. Spending time outside has meaningful effects on physical health; green spaces have correlations with longer life expectancy, reductions in chronic diseases like hypertension, and even a stronger immune response (Kuo 2015; McCracken, Allen, and Gow 2016; Twohig-Bennett and Jones 2018). Nature also provides mental health benefits, such as improving sleep, providing stress and anxiety relief, and reducing the adverse effects of ADHD and depression (Corraliza, Collado, and Bethelmy 2012; Kuo 2015; Wells 2000). By moving learn- ing outside, children experience these health benefits and improve their cognitive and non-cognitive skills like language, communication, confidence, intrinsic motivation, and autonomy (O’Brien 2009; Waite 2011). NBE not only has the potential to restore and heal the human relationship with the earth, but also to contribute significantly to the physical, social, intellectual, and emotional development of children. One common aspect of NBE, especially in early childhood, is risky play. Sandseter (2009) defined risky play as “thrilling and exciting forms of play that involve a risk of physical injury” (p. 4). Risk-taking is a natural and important part of children’s play; it allows them exhilarating outlets and teaches them risk assessment (Sandseter 2007). In traditional school environments, risky play is often deliberately minimized to avoid possibilities of injury or death (Brussoni et al. 2012; Wardle 1997). However, research has shown that restricting the tendency of children to participate in risky play can hinder development, including a lack of independence, stunted judgement, and decreased motor and spatial skills (Sandseter 2009). NBE takes advantage of the benefits of risky play by supporting learner-directed risk-taking that contributes to their overall wellbeing (FSA 2011). The characteristics that are associated with risky play, however, are traditionally associated with masculinity (Whittington 2006). The historical roots of outdoor education lie in training young boys to navigate and dominate their natural environment (Birrell 2018; Gurholt 2008; Humberstone 2000). Characteristics of strength, determination, and an affinity for danger are  ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 851 considered to be qualities expressed by men and boys. Gendered expression in the environment becomes increasingly complex considering another common aspect of NBE: critical caring and nurturing relationships with nature (FSA 2011). While risky play has associations with masculinity, nurturing and caring for those beyond oneself are often normed as feminine traits (Blenkinsop, Piersol, and Stika-Sage 2017; Schindel and Tolbert 2017). In NBE, both of these concepts are central, making the constructions and experiences of gender in that context somewhat complex. Gender does not exist statically but rather is learned and performed every moment (Butler 2004). When exploring gender in any research setting, it is critical to understand the way that theories of gender have evolved throughout the last several decades beyond binary, rigid rep- resentations and stereotypes. Even conventional notions of sex – the biological construct of physiological variation in species – have been influenced by new scientific research on genetic diversity that extends beyond the XX and XY chromosomal binary (Johnson and Repta 2012). Gender assigns socially constructed roles to these sex differences and is therefore culturally and temporally specific and ever-shifting. Gender identity, or the way individuals view themselves with respect to gender, complicates these sex differences even further. Personal identities do not always align with structured gender roles of femininity and masculinity and can fall outside of the gender binary altogether (Holmes 2007). While gender expression (the public presentation of gender through mannerisms and outward appearance), gender identity, and biological sex do not always align, inflexible interpretations and stereotypical expectations of gender often harm and oppress those who do not conform to this alignment (American Psychological Association 2015). Like many other facets of social development, gender begins to influence children from a young age. As children begin to observe the world around them, they learn about gendered roles and how to conform to the models that are presented to them. This process, known as gender socialization theory, is one of the earliest forms of socialization that children experience (Stockard 2006). However, children are not simply passive consumers of gendered expectations; they are constantly exploring gender through their actions and interactions with peers, allowing the gendered experience to evolve beyond a simple state of being and into a constantly reit- erative, performative process (Butler 2004). One of the primary ways that children explore their own understanding of gender is through play (Thorne 1993). Gendered language, gender divisions, gender-based groups, and gendered games or activities are all produced by children actively and collaboratively on a regular basis. A primary setting for this gender play to occur is at school, one of the central social scenes of childhood, which makes NBE a unique envi- ronment for gendered performance. Because child-centered exploration and play are common aspects of NBE, there are numerous opportunities for children to explore gender and for dif- ferent forms of gendered play to arise. The role that gender plays in schooling is not straightforward. For much of history, girls and women were forced to fight for access to any education at all, and even now female voices and perspectives are systematically left out of the curriculum (Sadker, Zimmerman, and Koch 2019). In recent years, however, much of the conversation has shifted to highlight new gender gaps. Today, boys are less likely than girls to graduate high school or attend college (DiPrete and Buchmann 2013). A patriarchal society harms students of all genders. Females make up the majority of college attendees, but males are awarded the most scholarship money. Males are more likely to be disciplined for behavior, placed in special education, and drop out of school; females are expected to behave in quiet, obedient ways that are rewarded in tra- ditional academic settings (Sadker and Sadker 2010). Those who identify beyond the gender binary are also oppressed by schools, as a patriarchal system is inherently a dichotomous one; men hold power over women, and there is little space for existing beyond this power structure. Students are asked to exist in binary gendered spaces every day at school, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, and to divide into gendered groupings for projects, competitions, and even walking down the hallway (Wooley 2015). Schools are thus designed to reproduce binary constructions of gender that inhibit and harm students of all gender identities. When 852 ABIGAIL DECKER AND SCOTT A. MORRISON environmental educators choose to break out of traditional structures and take learning outside, what are the implications for the influence of gender on students? The limited research on gender and NBE suggests that gender might be less rigid in outdoor environments. Waller’s (2010) multi-method study of 3- and 4-year-old nursery children in the United Kingdom found that play outside was minimally gender differentiated or stereotypical, though at times the boys in the group appeared to have more agency over the direction of play. Änggård’s (2011) ethnographic study in a Swedish outdoor preschool concluded that while gendered play occurred occasionally, the natural environments themselves were not gender-coded like indoor preschools and perhaps afforded more gender equity. These studies indicate that natural environments might contain fewer gendered expectations for play or learning, and therefore have the potential to facilitate less-gendered play and more dynamic gender explo- ration. In an era where gender is moving from the margins of environmental education to the spotlight (Gough, Russell, and Whitehouse 2017), and where researchers and practitioners alike are being called to look outward about the intersectionality of environmental education topics and inward about their own positionalities (Lloro-Bidart and Finewood 2018), more research on gender and NBE is still needed. Conceptual framework Our approach to this study was informed by ecofeminism and Froden’s (2019) situated decoding of gender. Many ecofeminists explain the modern human experience with nature as stemming from a deeply entrenched culture of dominance that defines women, people of color, the poor, non-European cultures, and other marginalized groups as synonymous with nature and servi- tude, while whiteness, maleness, and affluence is synonymous with human progress and suprem- acy (Fawcett 2000; Li 2007; Martusewicz, Edmundson, and Lupinacci 2014; Plumwood 2002). Violent hierarchical relationships of sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and ableism that exist in human society mirror the violent relationship between humans and the environment. Nature is to be dominated; humans are to dominate. Ideally, one of the goals of NBE is to dismantle this binary, supremacist thinking that places humans on a pedestal of superiority over the environment, and help students to trouble the idea of “human” and “nature” as single, separate, static entities by cultivating a bond with the natural world (Gough and Whitehouse 2003). In her case study of a Swedish preschool, Frödén (2019) introduced a new theoretical perspective called situated decoding of gender. Drawing from the understanding of gender as a constantly performative process (Butler 2004), Frödén observed the deliberate actions of educators who were attempting to subvert traditional expectations of gendered performance. In a direct contrast to the typical process of gender socialization, educators in this study made conscious attempts to carry out a reverse process—turning societal perceptions of masculinity and femininity into a gender decoded state where norms of gendered perfor- mance became de-emphasized. This situated decoding of gender, as Frödén concluded, was reiterative, much like gendered performance, and was cultivated through the construction of the physical environment, the repetitive structure of education, and the consistent actions of teachers. The complex coexistence of masculine- and feminine-coded experiences in NBE prompted us to consider how environmental educators perceived the role of gender in their work and the possibilities for decoding gender when teaching and learning outside. Research methods We conducted semi-structured interviews (Brenner 2006) with 20 participants who self-identify as environmental educators in nature-based settings about gender and their work with children. Elon University approved this study on October 17, 2018 (IRB ID: 19-079).  ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 853 Participants We used Twitter and email to recruit participants. Tweets briefly explained the purpose of the study and contained a link to a Qualtrics survey to collect some demographic and contact information. Within this demographic survey, age ranges were offered as a multiple choice question, but all other questions were open-response, including gender identity. We also emailed environmental educators in our professional network and, using snowball sampling, asked them to forward the email to others who might be interested in participating in the study. There were no parameters for subject area, age of students, geographical location, or educational settings for the participants, as the goal was to learn from a variety of environmental educators. Of the 37 people who filled out the survey, 20 responded to emails and were subsequently interviewed. The participants were from several different countries, of varying job titles, and who work with many different ages of children (see Table 1). Data collection Interviews were conducted via phone, Skype, or Zoom and lasted about 30-45 minutes. Questions were prepared ahead of time (see Appendix A), but not every pre-prepared question was asked in every interview or in the same order. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data analysis Following Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2019), the data analysis process was broken down into three parts: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing and verification. We individually analyzed the transcripts, identifying important words, phrases, and ideas. As the data analysis process was primarily inductive, we did not preselect codes or themes to search Table 1. Participants. Pseudonym Location Job Title Age Range Gender Identity Racial/Ethnic Identity Theresa Canada Kindergarten Teacher 41-50 Female Métis James Singapore Grade 5 Teacher 31-40 Male White Lauren Canada Grade 2 & 3 Teacher 41-50 Female White Renee United States Early Childhood Teacher 31-40 Female White Robert Ireland Forest School Manager 31-40 Male White Hailey United Kingdom Elementary School 41-50 Female White Teacher Skylar United States Naturalist Educator 31-40 Non-Binary White Emily Canada Kindergarten Teacher 51-60 Female White Andrew United Kingdom Outdoor Nursery 31-40 Male White/Scottish Manager Chris United Kingdom Outdoor Learning Coach 51-60 Male White/British Sophie Australia Sustainability Educator 41-50 Female Anglo Australian Rose United States Kindergarten Teacher 51-60 Female White Anna United States Director of Education 41-50 Female White Programming Nicholas United States Residential Outdoor 21-30 Male White School Instructor Jenny United States Garden Program 21-30 Female White Coordinator Cassandra United States Classroom Teacher 21-30 Female White Marna Canada Outdoor Classroom & 41-50 Female White Garden Teacher Kimberly United States Education Program 31-40 Female White Coordinator Alexis United States Clinical Herbalist & 41-50 Female White Garden Educator Susan United States Outdoor Educator 21-30 Female White 854 ABIGAIL DECKER AND SCOTT A. MORRISON for in the data; rather, codes and themes emerged from the data. We collectively compared words, phrases, and ideas used across all transcripts, identified potential codes, organized the codes into categories, and then developed themes. Positionality Our own identities matter in this study. As white, middle class, able-bodied, English-speaking citizens of the United States, we benefit from the systematic oppression that marginalizes people of color, the poor, non-English speakers, and immigrants, particularly in the United States. This study was undoubtedly influenced by our own gender identities and experiences as a queer woman and cishet man, which we regularly discussed from the formulation of the study to data collection and analysis. This project emerged, in fact, from our experiences in a forest classroom during an undergraduate education course. If we were noticing the ways that gender norms could be subverted when teaching and learning outside, were others noticing this, too? Limitations There are certainly limitations to this study. First, we used a convenience sample, so our findings are not generalizable to all environmental educators. Furthermore, even though we interviewed people from six different countries, almost all of the participants identified themselves as white. A more racially and ethnically diverse group of environmental educators might yield different findings. Second, the data we collected is self-reported from the participants. We were not able to observe them teaching and thus triangulate what they shared. Findings In our analysis of the data, we found seven themes, which we outline below and support with the words of the participants as often as possible. Statements of doubt The most common theme was a lack of surety or confidence in answering questions about gender in their work with children outside. To make an attempt at measuring this pattern, we created a code to identify “statements of doubt,” including phrases like “I don’t know,” “I’m not sure,” “I don’t understand it,” and similar rhetoric. Out of the 20 interviews, 12 contained one or more statements of doubt, with the majority of these interviews containing repeated doubtful sentiments. Many of these educators confessed that they had not thought about the influence of gender on their teaching as much as they would have liked. When asked generally about the influence of gender in her work with children, Lauren, an elementary school teacher based in Canada, said, “I feel like in general I probably don’t think about it as much as I should… I don’t know. I just don’t think about it. I don’t know. I just don’t think about that kind of thing.” Similarly, Hailey, an elementary school teacher from the United Kingdom, reflected, “I don’t think that in the sort of five, six years that I’ve been doing this work, that I’ve ever really con- sidered gender as something in its own right.” Cassandra, a teacher based in the United States, admitted that she had not been prepared for gender-related dialogues to occur in her classroom when telling a story about a student with same-sex parents: In our second grade year, we did have a student who had two moms. His mom had a partner. And that opened up a huge conversation that you never think you’re going to have in the classroom. I wasn’t prepared to talk about it. But, I mean, it was a wonderful conversation, but my stomach dropped the moment the kids realized what was going on, because I’m like, “Oh my gosh, I have to be really mindful of what I say right now.”  ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 855 Cassandra’s reflection that she had “never thought” she was going to have a conversation about gender or sexuality with her students, coupled with the statement “I wasn’t prepared to talk about it,” reinforces a theme of environmental educators, and perhaps educators in general, having minimal experience or preparedness to think or talk about the ways in which gender influences their learning environment. Some educators, like Alexis, a clinical herbalist and garden educator in the United States, specifically mentioned that they had never considered the questions we were asking, and would now think about these ideas more deeply in their future work with students: “I don’t… I’m not sure at all. These are hard questions. Really interesting. It’ll be cool to go out and think about this as I’m working. So we might have to do a follow-up.” Marna, a garden-based educator, reflected similarly: “I just don’t see it with the kids. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen though, right? …You’re making me think about what stuff I haven’t thought about really deeply, I guess. I’m going to have to follow up with you after I chew on this a bit.” What is being subverted? One of the easiest questions for educators to answer was providing anecdotes of gender roles being subverted outside. However, there was far more discussion of feminine gender roles being challenged than masculine gender roles. When asked about the role of gender in their work with students outside, or about specific occasions when they observed gender roles being subverted, all but two participants responded with observations about girls performing in traditionally mas- culine ways outside. Not until much later in the conversation, or when directly prompted by interview questions, would the conversation cover masculine gender roles being challenged outside. Once prompted, however, some of the educators had insightful observations about the potential NBE has to subvert traditional masculine roles as well. Renee discussed a particular activity in their outdoor curriculum that guides all students to express creativity and empathy for nature: “We have an activity we do called Tiny Friends, and we look for bugs and like small creatures, and I’ve seen some really caring boys that have really set up these little environments, and think about what their creature would really need and enjoy. One built a little swing set for a bug. That was really a creative thoughtful idea.” Developing critical caring for nature is central to the ethos of NBE (Schindel and Tolbert 2017), helping to subvert masculine gender roles for male students. However, the fact that few educators discussed masculine norms being subverted without prompting suggests that while environmental educators may consciously view the outdoors as a setting for disrupting feminine norms and allowing girls to express in traditionally masculine ways, they are less conscious of the potential the environment has for supporting the reverse. Within a binary Another theme that emerged was a tendency of educators to keep the conversation within the gender binary. Out of the 20 interviews, only four distinctly commented on gender extending beyond the traditional binary. Emily, a kindergarten teacher from Canada, and Anna, from the United States, mentioned their awareness of gender beyond the binary in passing. Emily remarked, “And I say ‘both’ genders, but I understand it’s not necessarily binary,” while Anna mentioned, “One of the teachers I work with is reading books about being gender fluid and choosing how to dress.” Alexis, a clinical herbalist and garden educator, reflected on her recent personal growth and learning around the gender binary: “It’s really a new realm for me; primarily my studies in herb school are as a healthcare worker. And so that’s when I started learning this language and the importance of it, of being able to offer everyone comfort in responding in a way that’s respectful of their identified gender.” 856 ABIGAIL DECKER AND SCOTT A. MORRISON The only other educator to discuss gender outside of a male/female binary was Skylar, who identifies as non-binary and consistently used phrases such as “any gender” and “all genders,” in their interview. Skylar also discussed ways that they intentionally create space for exploration and communication outside of the binary by allowing students to self-identify at the beginning of lessons: “We sit down with them and we’re like, hey let’s go around and say your name, your pronouns, and one thing you’re really excited to see today.” While allowing students to explore both masculine and feminine roles contributes to gender decoding, dismantling binary gender roles entirely and developing space for exploration outside of the binary has the potential to more fully decode gender in NBE. Freedom One of topics most often mentioned by participants was the freedom that learning outside provided their students. The educators interviewed in this study consistently discussed the way that their students find more opportunities in nature to explore their learning and their identities in ways that they choose. Many concluded that, while gender decoding might not be the main focus of such an environment, it certainly had the potential to provide the same freedom for each student’s understanding of their own gender identity and expression, and gender as a concept. Lauren, an elementary school teacher from Canada, explained her expe- rience with gender outside: Students have just another venue to shine with their talents. And so, we might discover a talent that a girl has that we’re expecting only boys to have, and then, you know, I think that’s going to change maybe the students’ expectation of ‘what do girls do,’ ‘what do boys do.’ Where… maybe by the time they get to be 12, they’ll have fewer of those… preconceived notions about it all. Phrases such as “more freedom,” “not confined,” and “more space to explore” arose several times across interviews, suggesting that nature as a learning environment simply allows stu- dents more room for all varieties of personal and educational discovery and development. In contrast to this theme, Jenny, a coordinator of garden-based programming in the United States, pushed back slightly against the notion that freedom and uninhibited choice is the goal of environmental educators: “I see my work as an educator in general as being a disruptor. When there are things that bring into question gender norms in the garden space, I absolutely feel like it’s my responsibility to call attention to those and hold a conversation around them when it’s possible.” This conflict between providing students freedom outdoors and deliberately disrupting play directed by gender norms appeared several times throughout interviews. Marna, a garden-based educator from Canada, provided an anecdote of a time where freedom was prioritized over intentional disruption: The culture is such that everybody gets what they need… I had something just the other day with one of the kids… I had taken out some chalk and put that out. And he said, “Well, maybe some girls will be interested in that. But I’m not.” And I was like, “All right. Well, it’s here if you change your mind.” In Marna’s example, the male student was perpetuating gender roles with his comment and actions. Her response was to reinforce the open-ended nature of their outdoor learning envi- ronment and let the student make his own learning choices. With NBE centering learner-based inquiry and play, educators reflected often that freedom and choice was their first priority in working with students, and often came to the conclusion that such a pedagogical strategy likely played a role in gender decoding, even if perhaps on some occasions it allowed traditional gendered play to continue.  ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 857 Physical environment Beyond simply allowing students more room for personal exploration, many participants sug- gested that the physical mechanisms of the outdoors provide less deliberate gender coding than an indoor classroom. In Frödén’s (2019) case study, researchers found that one of the ways educators developed a gender decoded space was through a physical environment absent from gendered cues. Such a phenomenon was seen in many of the interviewee’s experiences. Robert, a forest school leader from Ireland, described how the demands of an outdoor learning envi- ronment force the students to present in a less-gendered way: “We wore waterproof trousers, waterproof coats, everyone’s wearing boots. There’s no clothing difference, everyone’s wearing the same clothes. There’s no, you’re wearing a skirt, you’re wearing trousers, you can’t do that. It’s very unisex in that way.” Another environmental educator, Renee, described the neutrality of the toys and materials used by students outside: “I try to provide just nature materials. I don’t try to dress up anything. I really think that that helps create more of a non-bias in many ways, not just gender, but in lots of ways.” Similarly to the educators in Frödén’s study, the participants described the outdoors as a learning environment where gendered cues were less prominent. An environment that minimizes gender coding has the potential to facilitate gender decoding, but only if gendered roles and cues are not brought back to the space by educators and students. Language Another component in situated decoding of gender is language. The language educators use to talk to and about their students influences how children understand themselves and the world, and has the potential to reinforce or subvert gender roles. Several of the environmental educators interviewed in this study mentioned the language used in their teaching and the deliberate choices they have made to break down gender expectations through communication with their students. Andrew, an outdoor nursery manager from Scotland, discussed his conscious choices in the language he uses to refer to his students: “We’re not calling the boys, you know, mate and pal, and the girls sweetheart and darling and things like that. So, I think we think about how we can treat everybody the same.” By consciously avoiding nicknames, titles, or pet names that reinforce gender roles, children were given more freedom to explore gender in their own ways. Skylar, a naturalist educator who identifies as non-binary, emphasized the importance of pronouns in outdoor education: “there is such a default to give everything male pronouns, so we have whole trainings with our staff to kind of break them of that… trying to make sure that kids and adults of any gender see themselves being a part of nature.” Instinctively referring to animals and even inanimate objects in nature through male pronouns and masculine lan- guage can create a barrier to allowing all students to feel a connection to the outdoors. Anna, the director of education at a nature center, reflected on the same theme: “When we pick up a living thing, whether it’s an insect, a salamander, a frog… we refer to it as a he. Every single time. I have not once ever heard anyone prompt it as she.” Anna’s use of the word “we” demonstrates an awareness of the tendency for environmental educators to use language carelessly alongside their students, suggesting that the responsibility of decoding gender for students does not wholly rest on the natural environment and its benefits but the choices of educators as well. Conscious use of a variety of gendered and non-gendered language has the potential to break down these barriers and decode gendered expectations for children outside. Domesticating nature While many themes in the interviews demonstrated the potential of NBE to decode gender, the interview with Anna raised a counterpoint. When provided with freedom, choice, and intentional actions from environmental educators, sometimes students still perpetuate gender roles: 858 ABIGAIL DECKER AND SCOTT A. MORRISON The kids can do whatever. We have these different areas in the forest that they like to play in… we have a mud kitchen… and we have this tool area. And guess what? The boys are playing with the tools and the girls are over in the kitchen… Is that a learned behavior? Is that because we still only tend to see women in the kitchen and cooking or is it more an actual primal behavior where women tended to stay close to the community, and tend the fire, and process food, and take care of the children, and men were out hunting and coming back? I don’t know. All of the previously discussed themes of freedom, natural tools and toys, and restricted clothing exist in Anna’s anecdote, and yet gendered roles emerged. Such an experience is a reminder that NBE can not possibly exist in a genderless vacuum. Students come to school every day with socialized understandings of how society functions and which roles they are allowed to play, from other friends, family, and the media they have consumed. Anna continued to reflect on how, once the students have spent enough time in their natural space to form a comfortable relationship there, these roles begin to emerge: “If that’s the place that you end up staying in, then that place ends up being domesticated, and that’s where roles start playing out, including gender roles.” For a while, an unknown natural environment invites students to move beyond typical roles to learn how to exist in their new setting. Once a space becomes familiar, however, it becomes domesticated, much like any other space in society, and there may be nothing to hinder traditional gender roles from evolving. With the knowledge of what students bring to their learning environment in mind, the responsibility of educators to constantly and intentionally challenge those roles outside only grows. Perhaps nature, like any indoor classroom, tends towards stereotypical gender expression as long as students continue to be exposed to those roles beyond the classroom and bring them along. Discussion Much of the data suggests that aspects of NBE might be conducive for decoding gender. While this study only provides a snapshot of what educators consciously observe about gender in their own educational settings, future research is needed to fully understand all of the interac- tions between students and teachers, students and other students, and students and nature, and how all of these experiences contribute to gender coding or decoding outside. Physical elements of NBE such as tools, toys, and clothing might be less gendered than similar elements indoors, allowing for greater creativity in students’ play and learning in a variety of gendered ways. Many participants discussed the ways in which nature restricts physical expression in the form of clothing, since certain clothing items restrict mobility when outdoors. Some environ- mental educators even mentioned providing identical weather- or mud-resistant clothing for all students to wear outside. Such clothing potentially carries fewer gendered cues outdoors, in the same way that natural materials bring fewer gendered expectations for their use than indoor learning tools and toys. Natural materials, such as sticks, stumps, and leaves, are open-ended tools for learning and play compared to trucks, dolls, Legos, and other indoor play materials. There are no brands, popular culture references, or manufactured colors and patterns outside. Frödén (2019) observed something similar in her case study of a Swedish preschool: “The open-ended and simple dressing up outfit and play material seem to… open up for new and less normative narratives” (p. 128). In this way, the data from our study suggests that there are some aspects of nature as a physical space that provide fewer gendered cues than a tra- ditional indoor classroom, which contributes to gender decoding. However, the natural environment is not the only influence on how students experience gender. Environmental educators themselves must also be committed to gender decoding. Many participants in this study were able to provide anecdotes of feminine gender roles being chal- lenged but struggled to discuss how the outdoors can subvert masculine gender roles without 860 ABIGAIL DECKER AND SCOTT A. MORRISON it is productive, and how to consciously, intentionally shape student experiences with gender outdoors. Future research As one of the primary themes was a lack of confidence or surety from environmental edu- cators to speak on issues of gender in their work with students, future research is needed to understand the potential of NBE to disrupt or decode gender. Other studies should move beyond teacher perceptions and ask nuanced questions about gender in environmental education. For example, to what extent does free choice contribute to or subvert gendered play in nature? Educators in this study offered conflicting opinions about the role of free choice in decoding gender, some arguing that child-initiated play is the form most untouched by gendered norms while others claimed that intentional disruption is necessary. A deeper look into the role of free choice in NBE could shed light on this conflict and offer more insight for environmental educators wanting to create a gender-decoded space for their students. Additionally, with many environmental educators discussing their limited experiences thinking or talking about gender, it is worth exploring what moments or experiences currently prompt educators to think critically about the role gender plays with their students. Are there common experiences, perhaps like the moment Cassandra describes in her interview of having a student with same-sex parents, where gender becomes incredibly visible? How can these experiences be used to prompt environmental educators to think carefully about gender beyond such moments? In this study, educators primarily discussed ways in which their pedagogy, student interactions, and the physical environment of NBE were or were not gendered. Future research could probe deeper into gender’s influence on other aspects of NBE, specifically curriculum or assessment. These questions and others would continue this study’s line of questioning into the potential of environmental education to disrupt or decode gender for children and even adults. Conclusion Environmental educators influence the ways students experience and understand the world and therefore have the ability to shift and disrupt stereotypical understandings of gender roles and expectations, provide opportunities for students to experience gender beyond the binary, and cultivate respect, acceptance, and care for all people, especially those who are different from them. Every choice environmental educators make, from the books they read aloud to the ways they choose to group their students, sends a message to children about the roles they might play and the choices they might make. Nature does not decode gender; spaces alone do not dismantle stereotypes or systems of oppression. However, when children are immersed in outdoor environments with intentionality, nature can become a unique space where gender roles become less rigid and identities can be explored. For NBE to play a role in disrupting the gendered power structures causing harm throughout society, it will be through the actions of thoughtful, intentional environmental educators committed to teaching the next generation of empathetic, respectful, resilient human beings. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.  ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 861 Notes on contributors Abigail Decker is an undergraduate student majoring in elementary education at Elon University. Scott Morrison is an associate professor of education at Elon University. He is the middle grades program coor- dinator, and he coordinates the minor in environmental education. His research interests include teaching and learning outside, ecojustice education, and social media in teacher education. ORCID Scott Morrison http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0004-9723 References American Psychological Association. 2015. “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People.” American Psychologist 70 (9): 832–864. Änggård, E. 2011. “Children’s Gendered and Non-Gendered Play in Natural Spaces.” Children, Youth and Environments 21 (2): 5–33. Ardoin, N. M., A. W. Bowers, and E. Gaillard. 2020. “Environmental Education Outcomes for Conservation: A Systematic Review.” Biological Conservation 241: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108224 Barrable, A., and D. Booth. 2020. “Increasing Nature Connection in Children: A Mini Review of Interventions.” Frontiers in Psychology 11 (492): 1–7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00492. Birrell, C. 2018. “Eyes Wide Shut: A History of Blindness towards the Feminine in Outdoor Education in Australia.” In The Palgrave International Handbook of Women and Outdoor Learning, edited by T. Gray and D. Mitten, 473–488. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Blenkinsop, S., L. Piersol, and M. Stika-Sage. 2017. “Boys Being Boys: Eco-Double Consciousness, Splash Violence, and Environmental Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education 49 (3): 1–7. Brenner, M. E. 2006. “Interviewing in Educational Research.” In Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, edited by J. L. Green, G. Camilli, and P. B. Elmore, 357–370. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brussoni, M., L. L. Olsen, I. Pike, and D. A. Sleet. 2012. “Risky Play and Children’s Safety: Balancing Priorities for Optimal Child Development.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 9 (9): 3134–3148. doi:10.3390/ijerph9093134. Butler, J. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York: Routledge. Chawla, L. 2018. “Nature-Based Learning for Student Achievement and Ecological Citizenship.” Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue 20 (1–2): xxv–xxxix. Chawla, L. 2020. “Childhood Nature Connection and Constructive Hope: A Review of Research on Connecting with Nature and Coping with Environmental Loss.” People and Nature 2: 619–612. doi:10.1002/pan3.10128. Chawla, L., K. Keena, I. Pevec, and E. Stanley. 2014. “Green Schoolyards as Havens from Stress and Resources for Resilience in Childhood and Adolescence.” Health & Place 28: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.03.001. Corraliza, J. A., S. Collado, and L. Bethelmy. 2012. “Nature as a Moderator of Stress in Urban Children.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 38: 253–263. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.347. DiPrete, T. A., and C. Buchmann. 2013. The Rise of Women: The Growing Gender Gap in Education and What It Means for American Schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Duffy, J., K. Warren, and M. Walsh. 2001. “Classroom Interactions: Gender of Teacher, Gender of Student, and Classroom Subject.” Sex Roles 45 (9–10): 579–593. doi:10.1023/A:1014892408105. Fawcett, L. 2000. “Ethical Imagining: Ecofeminist Possibilities and Environmental Learning.” The Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 5 (1): 134–147. Francis, B. 2010. “Re/Theorising Gender: Female Masculinity and Male Femininity in the Classroom?” Gender and Education 22 (5): 477–490. doi:10.1080/09540250903341146. Frödén, S. 2019. “Situated Decoding of Gender in a Swedish Preschool Practice.” Ethnography and Education 14 (2): 121–135. doi:10.1080/17457823.2017.1422135. Gough, A., C. Russell, and H. Whitehouse. 2017. “Moving Gender from Margin to Center in Environmental Education.” The Journal of Environmental Education 48 (1): 5–9. doi:10.1080/00958964.2016.1252306. Gough, A., and H. Whitehouse. 2003. “The ‘Nature’ of Environmental Education Research from a Feminist Poststructuralist Standpoint.” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 8: 31–43. Gurholt, K. P. 2008. “Norwegian Friluftsliv and the Ideals of Becoming an ‘Educated Man’.” Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 8 (1): 55–70. 862 ABIGAIL DECKER AND SCOTT A. MORRISON Hegewisch, A., and H. Hartmann. 2019. The Gender Wage Gap: 2018 Earnings Differences by Race and Ethnicity. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research. https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-2018/ Hirshi, J. S. 2015. Ripe for Change: Garden-Based Learning in Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Holmes, M. 2007. What is Gender?: Sociological Approaches. London: SAGE Publications. Humberstone, B. 2000. “The ‘Outdoor Industry’ as Social and Educational Phenomena: Gender and Outdoor Adventure/Education.” Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning 1 (1): 21–35. doi:10.1080/ 14729670085200041. Hursh, D., J. Henderson, and D. Greenwood. 2015. “Environmental Education in a Neoliberal Climate.” Environmental Education Research 21 (3): 299–318. doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1018141. Jickling, B., S. Blenkinsop, N. Timmerman, and M. De Danann Sitka-Sage. 2018. Wild Pedagogies: Touchstones for Re-Negotiating Education and the Environment in the Anthropocene. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Johnson, J. L., and R. Repta. 2012. “Sex and Gender: Beyond the Binaries.” In Designing and Conducting Gender, Sex, & Health Research, edited by J. L. Oliffe and L. Greaves, 17–38. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishers. Judson, G. 2020. “Cultivating Ecological Relationships through Art and Place-Based, Imaginative, Educational Walks.” BC Art Teachers’ Association Journal, Special Edition: Art & Ecology 6 (21): 30–36. Kuo, M. 2015. “How Might Contact with Nature Promote Human Health? Promising Mechanisms and a Possible Central Pathway.” Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1093. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01093. Li, H. 2007. “Ecofeminism as a Pedagogical Project.” Educational Theory 57 (3): 351–368. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2007.00262.x. Lloro-Bidart, T., and M. H. Finewood. 2018. “Intersectional Feminism for the Environmental Studies and Sciences: Looking Inward and Outward.” Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 8 (2): 142–151. doi:10.1007/ s13412-018-0468-7. Louv, R. 2008. The Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books. Martusewicz, R. A., J. Edmundson, and J. Lupinacci. 2014. Ecojustice Education: Toward Diverse, Democratic, and Sustainable Communities. New York: Routledge. McCracken, D. S., D. A. Allen, and A. J. Gow. 2016. “Associations between Urban Greenspace and Health-Related Quality of Life in Children.” Preventive Medicine Reports 3: 211–221. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.01.013. Miles, M. B., A. M. Huberman, and J. Saldaña. 2019. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4th ed. London, UK: SAGE. Natural England. 2009. Childhood and Nature: A Survey on Changing Relationships with Nature across Generations. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5853658314964992 North American Association for Environmental Education. 2017. Nature Preschools and Forest Kindergartens: 2017 National Survey. http://naturalstart.org/sites/default/files/staff/nature_preschools_national_survey_2017.pdf O’Brien, L. 2009. “Learning Outdoors: The Forest School Approach.” Education 3-13 37 (1): 45–60. Plumwood, V. 2002. Environmental Culture: The Ecological Crisis of Reason. New York: Routledge. Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. 2019. Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/ victims-sexual-violence Russell, C., A. Gough, and H. Whitehouse. 2018. “Gender and Environmental Education in the Time of #MeToo.” The Journal of Environmental Education 49 (4): 273–275. Sadker, M., and D. Sadker. 2010. Failing at Fairness: How America’s Schools Cheat Girls. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Sadker, D., K. Zittleman, and M. Koch. 2019. “Gender Bias: Past, Present, and Future.” In Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, edited by J. A. Banks and C. A. McGee, 83–100. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons. Sandseter, E. B. H. 2007. “Categorising Risky Play—How Can We Identify Risk-Taking in Children’s Play?” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 15 (2): 237–252. Sandseter, E. B. H. 2009. “Characteristics of Risky Play.” Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning 9 (1): 3–21. doi:10.1080/14729670802702762. Schindel, A., and S. Tolbert. 2017. “Critical Caring for People and Place.” The Journal of Environmental Education 48 (1): 26–34. doi:10.1080/00958964.2016.1249326. Siossian, E. 2019. “Bush Schools Are Increasing in Australia and Teachers Say They’re Achieving Amazing Results.” ABC News, April 6. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-07/how-bush-schools-are-increasing-in-popularity-in-aus- tralia/10962604 Smith, M. A., A. Dunhill, and G. W. Scott. 2018. “Fostering Children’s Relationship with Nature: Exploring the Potential of Forest School.” Education 3-13 46 (5): 525–534. doi:10.1080/03004279.2017.1298644. Sobel, D. 1996. Beyond Ecophobia: Reclaiming the Heart in Nature Education. 2nd ed. Portland, ME: Orion Society. Sobel, D. 2008. Childhood and Nature: Design Principles for Educators. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Sobel, D. 2016. Nature Preschools and Forest Kindergartens: The Handbook for Outdoor Learning. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. Stockard, J. 2006. “Gender Socialization.” In Handbook of the Sociology of Gender, edited by J. S. Chafetz, 215–227. Boston, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/0-387-36218-5_11.  ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 863 Swain, J. 2006. “Reflections on Patterns of Masculinity in School Settings.” Men and Masculinities 8 (3): 331–349. doi:10.1177/1097184X05282203. The Forest School Association. 2013. “Full Principles and Criteria for Good Practice.” https://www.forestschoolas- sociation.org The Human Rights Campaign. 2020. “Fatal Violence against the Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Community in 2020.” https://www.hrc.org/resources/violence-against-the-trans-and-gender-non-conformi ng-community-in-2020 Thorne, B. 1993. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Twohig-Bennett, C., and A. Jones. 2018. “The Health Benefits of the Great Outdoors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Greenspace Exposure and Health Outcomes.” Environmental Research 166: 628–637. doi:10.1016/j. envres.2018.06.030. U.S. Bureau of Labor. 2018. “Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey.” https://www.bls.gov/cps/ cpsaat11.htm Waite, S. 2011. “Teaching and Learning outside the Classroom: Personal Values, Alternative Pedagogies and Standards.” Education 3-13 39 (1): 65–82. doi:10.1080/03004270903206141. Wake, S. J., and S. Birdsall. 2016. “Can School Gardens Deepen Children’s Connection to Nature? In Space, Place and Environment (Geographies of Children and Young People), Vol. 3. 1st ed., edited by K. Nairn, P. Kraftl, and T. Skelton, 89–114. Singapore: Springer. Walker, J. 2020. “Tough Girls: Gender Performance and Safety within Schools.” Children’s Geographies. doi.org/ do i:10.1080/14733285.2020.1718606. Waller, T. 2010. “‘Let’s Throw That Big Stick in the River’: An Exploration of Gender in the Construction of Shared Narratives around Outdoor Spaces.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 18 (4): 527–542. doi:1 0.1080/1350293X.2010.525953. Wardle, F. 1997. “Outdoor Play: Designing, Building, and Remodeling Playgrounds for Young Children.” Early Childhood News 9 (2): 36. Wells, N. M. 2000. “At Home with Nature: Effects of ‘Greenness‘ on Children’s Cognitive Functioning.” Environment and Behavior 32 (6): 775–795. doi:10.1177/00139160021972793. Whittington, A. 2006. “Challenging Girls’ Constructions of Femininity in the Outdoors.” Journal of Experiential Education 28 (3): 205–221. doi:10.1177/105382590602800304. Williams, D., and J. D. Brown. 2012. Learning Gardens and Sustainability Education: Bringing Life to Schools and Schools to Life. New York: Routledge. Williams, D. 2018. Garden-Based Education. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. doi:10.1093/acre- fore/9780190264093.013.188. Wooley, S. 2015. “Boys over Here, Girls over There”: A Critical Literacy of Binary Gender in Schools.” Transgender Studies Quarterly 2 (3): 376–394. Appendix A: Interview Questions To what extent do you think about the influences of gender in your work with children? To what extent do you consider how your role as a gendered educator might shape the way students think about gender? Have you ever intentionally thought about the way your nature-based pedagogy might have different effects on different students because of gender? Have you ever observed situations or moments where gender roles and expectations were subverted in your nature-based education setting? Have you observed situations or moments where gender roles and expectations were reinforced in your nature-based education setting? To what extent do you intentionally plan for gender-related discussions with students? Have you ever thought about how nature-based education might influence student understanding or experienc- es with gender differently than traditional education settings? Have you ever intentionally used your nature-based pedagogy to subvert or redefine gender expectations in your classroom? Is there anyone in your network that you think might have interesting thoughts or experiences related to our study that we should reach out to next?